Open mikofski opened 6 years ago
@adriesse didn't #762 and #763 already address this? I think this can be closed right?
pvsystem.max_power_point
singlediode.bishop88_i_from_v
singlediode.bishop88_v_from_i
singlediode.bishop88_mpp
I think the other functions in the list above have a Lambert-W which I don't think has a way to handle the thin-film recombination terms yet.
Can I close this issue?
I think this issue should stay open, or, be closed and replaced by several smaller issues that cover the scope:
Implementation in pvlib.singlediode
is complete by #763. bishop88
functions accept the arguments. The lambertw
functions don't use the arguments and shouldn't; the method can't solve the single diode equation with the recombination term.
For the first item above, pvlib.pvsystem.max_power_point
accepts the arguments by #763. The following functions could (and should) accept the arguments:
pvsystem.i_from_v
pvsystem.v_from_i
pvsystem.single_diode
These functions have a method
kwarg which defaults to lambertw
, but could be set to newton
or brentq
and thus d2mutau
could be used.
Problem This request was initially made in #163 and is also related to #470. As of #504
bishop88
can accept the thin-film recombination parameters:d2mutau
andvbi
to output IV curve and its gradients, but there is no propagation of this ability to the proxies that use it such aspvsystem.singlediode()
Solution Here is a proposed list of methods that should now be able to use these new terms:
singlediode_methods.bishop88_i_from_v()
singlediode_methods.bishop88_v_from_i()
singlediode_methods.bishop88_mpp()
singlediode_methods._lambertw_v_from_i()
singlediode_methods._lambertw_i_from_v()
singlediode_methods._lambertw()
pvsystem.PVSystem.singlediode()
pvsystem.PVSystem.i_from_v()
pvsystem.singlediode()
pvsystem.max_power_point()
pvsystem.v_from_i()
pvsystem.i_from_v()
Alternatives Please suggest alternative solutions. There has been discussion of refactoring
calcparams_pvsyst
or even creating model specificsinglediode_pvsyst
methods. Is that desired?Additional context this is a follow on to #504